By the way Keith.

The BHIVA are expressing their wishes in a submission to a consultation in the quote you gave. A very good one, as the epidemiology of sexual health does require trend and incidence analysis, as well as regional variation. Our people do have concerns that HPA data may be less valid if the quango bonfire affects their ability.

But the same people are the first to decry those who dangerously use HPA data to satisfy false assumptions. There is a similar issue on recall for breast screening, where data is being misinterpreted by pressure groups who want screening expanded on other than clinical appropriateness.

If you are a decent man, and your track record hasn't been sparkling it has to be said, you at least should accept that the epidemiology of a health aspect in a population size such as ours is more complicated than looking at history and trajectory and carving the results in stone.

I wish it were. We'd need to spend less on expensive consultant doctors. Public health consultants aren't cheap, but the planning and forecasting they give at a local level helps target services far better than far right groups, priests or politicians could ever do.



Jack. Sorry but Steve Shaw was both accurate and I think constrained in his condemnation of the worm above. To think that anybody could be so sinister and repugnant as to assume gay people, the ones who fought hard to be accepted, allowed to marry, aren't worth the effort because they are all adulterous anyway?

He makes my skin crawl.